The Atlantic: Drone Cops Take Flight in Los Angeles by Geoff Manaugh:
The L.A. County Sheriff has deployed a quadcopter drone for rescue and reconnaissance. But will the public accept that these aerial officers come in peace?
The Atlantic: Drone Cops Take Flight in Los Angeles by Geoff Manaugh:
The L.A. County Sheriff has deployed a quadcopter drone for rescue and reconnaissance. But will the public accept that these aerial officers come in peace?
Baylor Med School: Ethicists examine law enforcement’s use of genetic databases by Allison Mickey:
Continue reading
The officer momentarily put his head in the window of defendant’s car to better hear him, and then he smelled marijuana. The purpose of the intrusion was benign and not to conduct a search, and it was not unreasonable. State v. Mandel, 2018 N.J. Super. LEXIS 88 (June 6, 2018):
Continue reading
There was probable cause that defendant’s car was involved in a shooting such that its stop and search was reasonable under the automobile exception. That included removing paint chips from it when it had been removed to the police station. Commonwealth v. Holness, 2018 Mass. App. LEXIS 66 (June 7, 2018).
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public computer terminal in a library that was shared by many people. Also, the library employees were private actors. Berry v. Yosemite Cmty. College Dist., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95366 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2018).*
The District of Columbia’s policy to randomly drug test virtually everybody working at the crime lab could not constitutionally apply to plaintiff, a human resources specialist there. She was fired for refusing a drug test, and received $802,000 at a jury trial. The verdict is sustained. She was not in a sensitive position requiring drug testing. Lewis v. District of Columbia, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95520 (D. D.C. June 7, 2018).
Because there was probable cause to arrest, the officers get qualified immunity. Jecrois v. Sojak, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15200 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018).*
The Philadelphia sanctuary city case: City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94709 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2018).
“This is a hornbook example of how to waive an argument on appeal.” The search issue presented on appeal was never presented to the trial court. “[P]arties cannot conjure up brand new legal theories on appeal like this. Failing to bring an argument to the district court means that you waive that argument on appeal.” “And this case presents an egregious violation of that rule: not only did Wheeler and Thomas fail to argue below that the confidential informant did not exist, they tacitly admitted that the informant existed by arguing that his statements were hearsay.” Wheeler v. Hronopoulos, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15188 (7th Cir. June 6, 2018).
“We further agree with the district court that the errors in the affidavit were typographical and did not invalidate the warrant.” United States v. Shannon, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15240 (4th Cir. June 6, 2018).*
The electronic search condition on this juvenile for having a knife, rolling papers, and a lighter in school after a school search was unreasonable. The state says its need to prevent him from procuring more marijuana, but the court disagrees. In re D.B., 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 526 (1st Dist. June 6, 2018).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress search of his car because the automobile exception would have applied. State v. Pursley, 2018 Iowa App. LEXIS 534 (June 6, 2018).*
In light of settled law from the state supreme court, this court has no authority to hold that the passenger of a car has standing to challenge a search of the car. State v. Burks, 2018 Iowa App. LEXIS 503 (June 6, 2018).*
The affidavit for search warrant in this counterfeit goods case at defendant’s house had information 20 months old. But, the keeping of the counterfeit goods was an ongoing operation being sold around the area, and the search warrant wasn’t stale. This wasn’t like a drug case where the product comes and goes. State v. Howard, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 514 (June 5, 2018).
“That is, asserting that D.S. was unlawfully seized, or coerced into confessing, or denied effective counsel in violation of constitutional rights advanced under § 1983 necessarily implies that his assault conviction was unlawfully obtained. As a result, these claims are all barred by Heck, and the district court, as it was required to do, properly dismissed them. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Poventud, 750 F.3d at 132.” Sanchez v. City of New York, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15029 (2d Cir. June 5, 2018).*
This case started with an anonymous letter about alleged drug sales at defendant’s residence. A trash pull was conducted on “Thursday.” Read in context, that means the previous Thursday, and the search warrant wasn’t stale when issued. State v. Teague, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 525 (June 5, 2018). They use the Naval Observatory to determine that a particular date was a Thursday. Why couldn’t they just look at the calendar on their phone? Calendars are never not subject to judicial notice.
“Contrary to Ardoin’s arguments, the affidavit supporting the first warrant is not bare bones. It contained facts and circumstances within the personal knowledge of the affiant rather than ‘wholly conclusory statements.’” And, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Ardoin, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15067 (5th Cir. June 5, 2018).*
The affidavit for the search warrant in this case mentioned that a pipe was seen in defendant’s house. The court of appeals finds that the affidavit doesn’t tell enough to determine whether it was a pipe for use for ingesting drugs, so the affidavit fails to show probable cause. State v. Lenoir, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 519 (June 5, 2018).*
The CI gave detailed information that defendant and a confederate would show up at a parking lot to conduct a drug deal, and the CI had been reliable in the past. When defendant showed up at the parking lot with the confederate, that was at least reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop, and then drugs were seen. The search of the car was with probable cause. State v. Madden, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 429 (June 5, 2018).*
There was probable cause for a search warrant for defendant’s house for a firearm involved in a crime ten days after the crime. Firearms are possessions usually kept. People v. Rodriguez, 2018 IL App (1st) 141379-B, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 331 (June 5, 2018):
Continue reading
The search of defendant after a patdown which included something “squishy” in her bra was unreasonable because it could not be a search for weapons. State v. Broom, 2018 ND 135, 2018 N.D. LEXIS 143 (June 5, 2018):
Continue reading
The purchase of a chemical that could be used to make a toxic chemical weapon, legal in itself, can be probable cause. “A series of legal acts may provide the basis for probable cause of illegal acts.” United States v. Michell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94318 (D. Ariz. June 5, 2018):
Continue reading
Just Security: Opinion: What If Police Use ‘Rekognition’ Without Telling Defendants? by Sarah St. Vincent:
At least two US law enforcement departments – and Motorola, which sells equipment to the government – have already purchased access to Amazon’s ‘Rekognition’ system. This technology combines facial recognition and artificial intelligence to identify people and track their movements, including in crowds.
Gizmodo: Paul Manafort Learns That Encrypting Messages Doesn’t Matter If the Feds Have a Warrant to Search Your iCloud Account by Matt Novak:
Federal prosecutors have accused Paul Manafort of witness tampering, alleging that he used WhatsApp and Telegram in an attempt to coordinate his testimony with old business associates. Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, may have thought that he was being sneaky by using encrypted chat apps, but Manafort just learned the hard way that strong encryption doesn’t really matter if you’re backing up your messages to the cloud-especially when the federal government gets a warrant to access your iCloud account.
If probable cause is shown, Facebook warrants have to be broad. There must be some attempt to limit by at least the crime under investigation, but the result will likely be production of the entire account. That is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Liburd, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94440 (E.D. N.Y. June 5, 2018):
Continue reading
Defendant fled from a car, and a gun was in plain view in the car. The officer acted reasonably in searching the car to secure the firearm under Michigan v. Long [aside from abandonment of the car] because defendant could have circled back to the car and retrieved the gun. Moore v. Commonwealth, 2018 Va. App. LEXIS 147 (June 5, 2018).
Defendant was shown to have consented to the search of his cell phone. United States v. Rodriguez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94320 (W.D. Va. June 5, 2018).*
Kansas City Star: Driving while black in Missouri is becoming more perilous, traffic stop report shows:
Continue reading
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not adequately pursuing defendant’s motion to suppress because defendant admitted to counsel facts after the motion was filed that he had no standing at all. He provided that address as his address, but he was only there for commercial distribution of marijuana, thereby further linking himself to the address for guilt purposes. Campbell v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14717 (11th Cir. June 4, 2018).
The affidavit for the arrest warrant was insufficient for lack of particular facts, but the officer still relied on it in good faith. The search of the car was justified by inventory or the automobile exception, so defendant’s alleged lack of standing is moot. State v. Jackson, 2018-Ohio-2131, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2323 (8th Dist. June 4, 2018).*